Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the key transformation behavior (dropping query and fragment) and the output shape, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how invalid URLs are handled, or that the many unrelated schema parameters appear to be ignored.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and every word adds information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite a complex 9-parameter schema and no annotations or output schema, the description only covers the basic output behavior. It omits how to supply the URL, how the extra parameters are treated, and any error or return-format details, making it incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify that the `url` parameter is likely the only relevant input; the mention of 'query' could also be confused with the `query` parameter documented in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'URL', and specifies the output fields (origin, host, path) plus the normalization behavior that query and fragment are dropped. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent can only infer that it should be used when origin/host/path are needed, which is not explicit enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.